For Dems only.

[Balta1701]

I think this pretty much sums up everything I've been saying for the past 6 years.

 

 

Yeah, why would the U.S. have any reason to care about the successes of the Taliban in the border region of Pakistan and how it is gradually destabilizing a nuclear power. We need more Bible!

Edited March 30, 2007 by Balta1701

[Soxy]

Interesting article on Iran

Some excerpts:

 

Yet it is hard to punish masochists. The problem for policymakers is that Iran’s leadership positively welcomes Western threats. Almost certainly, the Castro regime in Cuba has lasted a generation longer than it would otherwise have because of the state of siege imposed by Washington. So, likewise, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s power, and that of the clerics who rule behind the scenes, depends upon sustaining confrontation.

 

We must keep talking to the Iranians, offering carrots even when these are contemptuously tossed into the gutter, because there is no credible alternative. Even threats of economic sanctions must be considered cautiously. Their most likely consequence would be to feed Iranian paranoia, to strengthen the hand of Tehran’s extremists. A state of declared Western encirclement could suit President Ahmadinejad very well indeed.

[Balta1701]

So, for those who missed it in the news today...the U.S. government just reached a plea bargain with the Australian guy held at Gitmo, which will basically have him out of jail in a few months.

 

As far as I can tell...the main thing that the U.S. government wanted to get out of him? Not a guilty plea...the government wants him to shut his mouth about what was done to him to get him to confess.

The deal included a statement by Mr. Hicks that he “has never been illegally treated” while a captive, despite claims of beatings he had made in the past. It also included a promise not to pursue suits over the treatment he received while in detention and “not to communicate in any way with the media” for a year.

 

Critics said those requirements were a continuation of what they say has been a pattern of illegal detention policies. “It is a modern cutting out of his tongue,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a legal advocacy group, based in New York, that is coordinating the representation of detainees in many suits challenging Guantánamo detention.

Whatever the government did to this guy, they seemingly think it was bad enough to give him a couple-month long sentance for terrorist activity in exchange for him keeping quiet.

[Balta1701]

Interesting little bit on Income Inequality from the Wall Street Journal.

Even before Republicans' November defeat at the polls, some administration allies were warning that economic insecurity was eroding Republican support. A business coalition hired pollster David Winston to figure out why voters remained so dissatisfied with the economy. His focus groups of middle-income voters in Cincinnati and Pittsburgh found voters going deeper into debt to keep up with rising costs of health care and energy. Executive compensation "is getting to the point where it's obscene," said one focus-group participant.

 

The more politicians talked about how good the economy was, the worse these voters felt. "It's almost as if these folks are floating around in the ocean, watching the yachts and speedboats go by, thinking, 'Hey, I'm here, someone notice me,'" says Dirk Van Dongen, a co-chairman of the coalition and president of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. Mr. Winston advised Republicans: "Our message should be that while the economy is getting back on track, we need to do more to help people with the cost of living."

[BigSqwert]

MSNBC.com breaking news headline:

 

Democrat Barack Obama raises $25 million in the first quarter

[Balta1701]

I figured this should be posted somewhere. The American Drug industry has, in the last 18 months, spent a whopping $155 million lobbying Congress. $155 million. Just think about that for a minute...how much money do they think they have a chance to get from Congress if they're dumping $155 million into their funds in 18 months? God I hate this system.

[Balta1701]

Um...

The United States fears that the next September 11-style attack on America could be launched by Muslims from Britain or Europe who feel "second-class citizens" and alienated by a "colonial legacy", according to the US Homeland Security chief.

 

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Michael Chertoff, who arrives in Britain tomorrow for talks with John Reid, the Home Secretary, said the US was determined to build extra defences against so-called "clean skin" terrorists from Europe.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Um...

 

You're doing a heckuva jon, Cherty.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Bush appoints Swift Boat financier as ambassador -- avoiding Senate approval

 

Last week, facing enormous opposition, the White House pulled the nomination of controversial Swift Boat campaign funder, Sam Fox, to be Ambassador to Belgium. Today, in a direct rebuke to America's veterans who served in Vietnam unlike Bush and Cheney, Bush used a "recess appointment" to avoid Senate confirmation and gave Fox the job anyway:

 

President Bush named Republican fundraiser Sam Fox as U.S. ambassador to Belgium on Wednesday, using a maneuver that allowed him to bypass Congress where Democrats had derailed Fox's nomination.

 

. . .

 

Recognizing Fox did not have the votes to obtain Senate confirmation, Bush withdrew the nomination last month. On Wednesday, with Congress out of town for a spring break, the president used his power to make recess appointments to put Fox in the job without Senate confirmation.

[Soxy]

Bush appoints Swift Boat financier as ambassador -- avoiding Senate approval

Aaaaahhh, your avatar is more appropriate now than usual. . .

[Balta1701]

Wow. That's one hell of a FU to the Congress.

[FlaSoxxJim]

More on the recess appointment:

 

UPDATE: The White House originally said that it had pulled Fox because “his nomination would not have passed” the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Fox donated $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

 

UPDATE II: Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) responds: “I seriously question the legality of the President’s use of the recess appointment authority in this instance. I intend to seek an opinion on the legality of this appointment from the General Accountability Office and invite other Senators to join with me in that request. This is underhanded and an abuse of Executive authority — sadly this behavior has become the hallmark of this administration.”

[Balta1701]

More on the recess appointment:

Unfortunately I think Mr. Dodd has no standing here, but hey, anything that gets more press coverage for this move, considering how blatant it is...

 

I read someone else suggest that the Senate should gut the State Department's budget for it's Belgian Embassy. I like that idea too. Pretty much just as nice as Mr. Bush's move.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Mary Ann Akers of the Washington Post explains why President Bush’s recess appointment of Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium may break the law:

 

To fight the Fox appointment, Democrats are questioning the Bush administration’s plan to have Fox serve in a voluntary capacity — receiving no pay for his duties as ambassador. This is an important legal technicality, as federal law prohibits “payment of services” for certain recess appointments. However, if the recess appointee in question agrees that he or she will take an unpaid position and not sue the government at a later date for compensation, then the appointment can go forward, at least as the White House sees it. …

 

But here’s the rub that makes Democrats view Bush’s recess appointment of Fox as a major-league no-no: Federal law prohibits “voluntary service” in cases where the position in question has a fixed rate of pay, as an ambassadorship does. That’s how the Government Accountability Office, an arm of the Democratic-controlled Congress, interprets the law.

[NorthSideSox72]

Mary Ann Akers of the Washington Post explains why President Bush’s recess appointment of Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium may break the law:

I hope they nail the executive's ass to the wall on this one. This kind of underhanded B.S. is embarrasing, even compared to the rest of the political system. Further, it would be nice (if even possible) if Congress passed a law to prohibit these recess appointments ad infinitum. This is the kind of thing that even some Republicans would probably sign onto, given how subversive their actions are, so a veto-proof majority could probably be accomplished.

[FlaSoxxJim]

There are two other recess appointments Bush just made that seem equally bads in terms of doing and end-run around Senate confirmation. They're flying under the radar because there was no public withdrawal of the nomination like there was for Fox.

 

The president appointed Andrew Biggs to serve as the next deputy commissioner of Social Security, despite the fact that Biggs is an aggressive advocate of privatizing the Social Security system. His nomination in November was considered ridiculous by Senate Democrats, and with this recess appointment yesterday, Bush effectively announced that he no longer wants to even consider negotiations over reforming the system.

 

And then there’s Susan Dudley, who Bush appointed to oversee federal regulatory policy at the Office of Management and Budget, despite her anti-regulatory career at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

 

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs holds sway over federal regulatory agencies like the EPA and helps set regulatory policy for a wide range of issues, from workplace safety to water quality….

 

As the director of regulatory studies at the industry-backed Mercatus Center she has worked to oppose vital public health regulation as a “hidden tax” that hinders profits.

 

Some of her targets have included EPA health standards for smog, opposition to lower-polluting cars, opposition to air bags, and opposition to stronger regulations for arsenic in drinking water. For some reason, the Senate had some concerns about her nomination. The White House not only doesn’t care about the concerns, it also decided it doesn’t care about the constitutional nomination process.

[Balta1701]

There is something really creepy about this...

 

[kapkomet]

There is something really creepy about this...

 

ok, I'm game. What?

[FlaSoxxJim]

ok, I'm game. What?

 

Well. Dick lurking in the hedges while Bush delivers a speech in the rose garden is a curious sight. He's not sitting next to the podium or standing behind him, he's just sort of grimacing and flinching uncomfortably and skulking in the bushes.

[kapkomet]

Dick lurking in the hedges while Bush delivers

 

Isn't that just bassackward?

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

Isn't that just bassackward?

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Today's reading on supply side economics.

AS one who was present at the creation of “supply-side economics” back in the 1970s, I think it is long past time that the phrase be put to rest. It did its job, creating a new consensus among economists on how to look at the national economy. But today it has become a frequently misleading and meaningless buzzword that gets in the way of good economic policy.

 

Today, supply-side economics has become associated with an obsession for cutting taxes under any and all circumstances. No longer do its advocates in Congress and elsewhere confine themselves to cutting marginal tax rates — the tax on each additional dollar earned — as the original supply-siders did. Rather, they support even the most gimmicky, economically dubious tax cuts with the same intensity.

 

The original supply-siders suggested that some tax cuts, under very special circumstances, might actually raise federal revenues. For example, cutting the capital gains tax rate might induce an unlocking effect that would cause more gains to be realized, thus causing more taxes to be paid on such gains even at a lower rate.

 

But today it is common to hear tax cutters claim, implausibly, that all tax cuts raise revenue. Last year, President Bush said, “You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” Senator John McCain told National Review magazine last month that “tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues.” Last week, Steve Forbes endorsed Rudolph Giuliani for the White House, saying, “He’s seen the results of supply-side economics firsthand — higher revenues from lower taxes.”

 

This is a simplification of what supply-side economics was all about, and it threatens to undermine the enormous gains that have been made in economic theory and policy over the last 30 years. Perhaps the best way of preventing that from happening is to kill the phrase “supply-side economics” and give it a decent burial.

[Balta1701]

I'm never shopping in Indiana again.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm never shopping in Indiana again.

 

There are times when our very own politicians rival those in Iran and Russia when it comes to propoganda. I'm laughing so I don't cry.

[BigSqwert]

MSNBC.com Breaking News headline:

 

Pentagon notifies National Guard in 4 states about possible Iraq deployment.